Palestine - 1922 Two-State Solution Key To Resolving Arab-Jewish Conflict

[Published 22 October 2015]


United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Ki moon has jetted into Jerusalem on a fool’s errand - with tensions continuing to escalate between Arabs and Jews as their conflict spanning almost 100 years remains unresolved.

The Secretary-General observed:

“Beyond the immediate tensions, what is missing is the resolve to restore a political horizon for talks, and a political process that delivers real results and hope… We must, for the future of our children, turn back from this dangerous abyss, safeguard the two-state solution and lead people back onto the road towards peace,”

Safeguarding this “two-state solution” – code words for creating a second Arab State in Mandatory Palestine in addition to Jordan – is a lost cause. Restoring talks on this failed political process after twenty years of fruitless negotiations is meaningless United Nations babble speak.

The Secretary-General needs to focus on the “two-state solution” actually existing in 2015 – Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the 1922 Mandate for Palestine – which eventually emerged after:

1. the 1920 Arab riots and

2. the political machinations of France and Great Britain between 1920 and 1922.

The riots were intended to pressure decisions affecting the fate of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Mesopotamia (Iraq) at the San Remo Conference starting on 19 April 1920 - following the liberation of those territories from 400 years of Ottoman Empire rule in World War 1.

The Arabs opposed a Jewish homeland in Palestine – and went on a murderous rampage to express their rage. 5 Jews and 4 Arabs were killed and hundreds wounded between 4 April and 7 April 1920.

However,the riots had little impact on the decisions taken at San Remo and the subsequent signing of the Treaty of Sevres.

The resulting Mandate for Palestine – adopted unanimously by all 51 member States of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922:

1. Gave recognition to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

2. Empowered Great Britain as the Mandatory Power to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home whilst safeguarding the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The Mandate, however, contained Article 25 – a provision used to deny the Jews the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Transjordan - 78% of the territory of Mandatory Palestine.

The inclusion of Article 25 followed French pressure on the British to stop Abdullah – the second son of the Sharif and Emir of Mecca Hussein bin Ali – leaving Transjordan whilst en route to Damascus with an armed force of 400 Arabs to help his brother Feisal resist French attempts to remove him from power in Syria.

Britain obliged by appointing Abdullah Emir of Transjordan on 11 April 1921. This Emirate became the independent Jew-free Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in 1946 – today’s Jordan.

Achieving these British and French objectives closed the door firmly on any right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Transjordan - confining that right within the remaining 22% of Mandatory Palestine – today’s Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza.

Redrawing the current boundaries of that fateful 1922 decision - taking into consideration today’s changed circumstances on the ground - remains the key to ending the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Pencils and rubbers wielded by Israeli and Jordanian negotiators can end the indiscriminate murder and maiming of Jews by Arab gun-toters, knife-stabbers, stone-throwers and car-rammers - and the inevitable Jewish response.

Islamic Lifelines Can Prevent Islamic State Dead Lines

[Published 14 October 2015]


Australia was introduced to a high school chaplain and Muslim community leader Sheikh Wesam Charkawi on one of Australia’s most widely viewed TV shows - Q and A - last Monday evening.

Australians were still trying to come to terms with the shooting murder of a 58- year-old police department accountant by a 15-year-old Muslim youth dressed in black robes shouting “Allahu Akbar” outside NSW Police Headquarters in Parramatta some 10 days earlier.

Indeed the Parramatta murder was the third such instance involving Muslims in Australia in the last year - culminating in the loss of three innocent lives and the deaths of the three perpetrators.

Yet Sheikh Charkawi told his audience:

"Our faith teaches to withhold our hands from the breaking the branch of a tree, let alone taking the life of a human being, which equates to taking the life of humanity and saving the life of one amounts to saving the life of all. These are bedrock principles"

The Sheikh’s viewpoint was a revelation - considering the widely held belief that Islam with its Koranic concepts of jihad, martyrdom and forced conversion of non-Muslims was anything but the sanctity-of-life faith portrayed by him.

Sheikh Charkawi in seeking to explain the circumstances of the Parramatta murderer opined:

"I’m seeing a lot of identity issues with the young men and women and I keep hearing from many on the streets and in the schools that I visit that they tell us that we don’t belong. They say that we’re not part of the Australian society, we’re not part of the Australian community, that we’re terrorists, that we’re extremists, that our religion is one that is of destruction and loss of life and so on and so forth. Now, you’ve got to remember that these people were born into the age of terror and they’re being told that they don’t belong. What that leads to is to marginalisation and isolation, and if you add that to the mix of the propaganda that is being put forward by the groups like ISIS, it’s a very dangerous mix and so you see that it requires a whole of society effort and that’s the reality of it."

Left unanswered by the Sheikh was why such marginalisation, isolation and propaganda could lead a 15-year-old Muslim boy to take the life of another human being had he been properly instructed in the bedrock principles of Islam as enunciated by the Sheikh.

Instead the Sheikh tried to pass the buck - stating:

"If we take this issue and we restrict it to the Muslim narrative and we say that this is a Muslim problem, what happens is you can’t then step back and look for other empirical evidence as to any underpinning or driving forces that may be at hand here."

With the greatest respect to the Sheikh it is indeed a Muslim problem resulting from failing to properly educate its adherents from an early age that:

1. the taking of life is contrary to the principles of Islam

2. negative attitudes or grievances held by a Muslim cannot be resolved by taking the lives of other Muslims or non-Muslims

3. If the religious instruction afforded Muslims is faith-based on the bedrock principles espoused by the Sheikh — then attempts by Islamic State or other groups to recruit Muslims to their murderous ranks will surely fail.

Let the Australian Muslim community condemn those who seek to violate the sanctity of life in mosques and madrassas as this video recently taken in a mosque in Gaza so chillingly demonstrates.

The silence so far has been deafening.

Palestine - United Nations Bedazzled By Abbas Word Wizadry

[Published 4 October 2015]


PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s speech to the UN General Assembly last week contained a concoction of half-truths and outright lies that everyone who listened to him should question.

Here are some prize porkies:

1. “The question of Palestine was one of the first just issues brought before the United Nations from the time of its inception, and yet it remains unresolved until this moment”

Abbas failed to mention that it has remained unresolved since then because:
(i) The Arabs did not accept the 1947 UN Partition Plan to partition western Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State — whilst the Jews did.

(ii) The Arabs — instead - unsuccessfully sent six Arab armies to invade Palestine in May 1948 to rout the newly declared Jewish State — Israel - and drive its Jewish population into the sea

(iii) Jordan and Egypt successfully drove out and permanently expelled the Jewish population living in the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria (later termed “the West Bank”) - keeping those areas Jew-free from 1948 until 1967

(iv) No attempt was made between 1948 and 1967 to create the Palestinian state Abbas says he will now accept. That opportunity has been well and truly missed.

2. Abbas described the Palestinian Arabs as “a people that had lived peacefully in their land and made genuine intellectual, cultural and humanitarian contributions to mankind.”

Abbas was gilding the lily.
(i) The Arab riots in Jerusalem in 1920, the Hebron massacre of the Jewish community in 1929 and the Arab riot between 1936 and 1939 give the lie to his claims.

(ii) No genuine intellectual, cultural and humanitarian contributions have been made to mankind by the Palestinian Arabs — unless airline hijackings, suicide vests, and indiscriminate targeting of Jews is what Abbas had in mind

3. “While Palestine was partitioned into two states — according to which Israel was established 67 years ago - the second part of that resolution still awaits implementation.”

Abbas suffers from a selective memory.
(i) Palestine was effectively divided 92 years ago in 1923 - when 78% - originally designated for the Jewish National Home by the 1920 San Remo conference and the Treaty of Sevres — was denied to Jewish settlement by article 25 of the Palestine Mandate.

(ii) This area subsequently became the Jew-free independent Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in 1946 - renamed Jordan in 1950 after being unified with Judea and Samaria.

4. “We recall here the words of the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1976, when he stated that Israel will become an apartheid state if it continues its occupation of the Palestinian territory and described the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land as “cancer”.

Abbas misleadingly failed to tell the General Assembly that Rabin’s view had changed markedly just before his assassination in 1995 — after experiencing 19 years of unremitting terrorism and rejectionism by the PLO — telling the Knesset:
(i) The borders of the State of Israel would be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. Israel would not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

(ii) Jerusalem would be united and would include both Maale Adumim and Givat Zeev as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty

(iii)The security border of Israel would be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term

(iv) Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities in the area east of what was the “Green Line” prior to the Six Day War would be included in the State of Israel;

(v) Blocs of settlements would be established in Judea and Samaria like the one in Gush Katif

(vi) No single settlement would be uprooted in the framework of the Interim Agreement, nor building hindered for natural growth

5. “Palestine is a country of holiness and peace. It is the birthplace of Christ, the messenger of love and peace, and the Isra’ and Mi’raj (ascension to heaven and night journey) of Mohammed”

Abbas omitted any mention of the Jews — the forebears of the Christians

6. “It is no longer useful to waste time in negotiations for the sake of negotiations; what is required is to mobilize international efforts to oversee an end to the occupation in line with the resolutions of international legitimacy.”

(i) Abbas supposedly supports “resolutions of international legitimacy” — yet the PLO he heads has declared that the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.

(ii) The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter are resolutions of international legitimacy that cannot be swept away because Abbas does not like them.

7. "The state of Palestine, based on the 4th of June 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, is a state under occupation, as was the case for many countries during World War II.”

(i) “The state of Palestine” does not meet the legal requirements of customary international law as encapsulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

(ii) There were no borders — only armistice lines.

(iii) How can “Palestine” be a state under occupation since there was no such State in existence prior to 1967?

The applause accorded Abbas in the UN General Assembly indicates how his deceptively misleading word wizardry continues to confound attempts to end the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict.

Exposing its false peddlers must never cease.

Time the United Nations woke up and restored its own credibility.

Syrian Sinkhole Swallowing Obama And Putin's Credibility And Political Judgement

[Published 30 September 2015]


President Barack Obama’s continuing focus on removing Syria’s President Assad to secure America’s co-operation with Russia to destroy the Islamic State — whilst President Putin has now independently commenced Russian air strikes in Syria - supposedly on Islamic State forces — exposes both leaders lack of credibility and political judgment.

Obama addressing the United Nations General Assembly on 28 September asserted:

“The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo…

... Yes, realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL. But realism also requires a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader, and an inclusive government that recognizes there must be an end to this chaos so that the Syrian people can begin to rebuild."

Obama’s acceptance of Russia and Iran as acceptable partners — but not Syria - makes no sense. Russia and Iran have propped up Assad’s hold on power in Syria for the last five years enabling the bloodshed and carnage in Syria to continue unabated.

Putin however argues for co-operation with Syria’s armed forces:

“We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s armed forces and Kurds militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.”

Putin’s undisguised contempt for the American led coalition’s efforts to degrade and destroy the Islamic State is a harsh — and arguably unfair - indictment.

Nevertheless both Presidents’ differing viewpoints and responses are now on the public record - and need to be reconciled before any Security Council resolution creating a UN armed force to destroy the Islamic State can emerge.

Obama’s preference for a Security Council Resolution can be gleaned from his comments made at a press conference in Russia on 6 September 2013 — shortly after chemical weapons had been used in Syria to gas 1400 people including 400 children. America took the view that Assad was the culprit — whilst Russia considered that the rebel forces battling Assad was the aggressor.

President Obama reasoned:

“You know, there are number a of countries that just as a matter of principle believe that if military action is to be taken, it needs to go through the U.N. Security Council…

... It is my view ... that given Security Council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required and that will not come through Security Council action.

And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done”

Eight days later — after three days of negotiations between America and Russia — the Security Council in fact adopted a resolution - jointly sponsored by America and Russia - on destroying chemical weapons in Syria - contrary to Obama’s belief that such co-operation was not possible.

Concentrating on their commonly agreed problem — destroying chemical weapons — and not who fired them — averted any possible Security Council paralysis.

Similarly Russia and America need to concentrate on jointly destroying their common agreed enemy - the Islamic State - under a UN mandated Security Council Resolution - rather than acting independently — and dangerously - of each other whilst arguing about Assad’s fate as President or Syria’s inclusion in any proposed UN force.

President Putin warned that the stakes of operating outside a UN Security Council resolution are high:

“Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.

We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.

On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.

Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes.”

President Obama also understands the risks of acting unilaterally:

“No matter how powerful our military, how strong our economy, we understand the United States cannot solve the world’s problems alone.”

With Russian airstrikes seriously escalating the conflict in Syria - Obama and Putin need to urgently sponsor that Security Council resolution before the Syrian sinkhole opens even wider.

America's Policy Mistakes Give Islamic State Big Breaks

[Published 24 September 2015]


America’s ongoing insistence on wanting Syria’s President - Bashar al-Assad - removed from power - continues to hinder American policy on removing the Islamic State as a threat to international peace and security.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly made it patently clear to America on 2 June 2015 that the issue of removing Assad as Syria’s President should not be confused with removal of the Islamic State from the world scene:

“The U.S.‘s “obsession” with [Syria’s President] Assad isn’t helping in the common fight against the threat from Islamic State…

People put the fate of one person whom they hate above the fight against terrorism. Islamic State can go “very far” unless stopped, and air strikes alone “are not going to do the trick.

If people continue to acquiesce with what is going on and continue to acquiesce with those who categorically refuse to start the political process until Bashar Assad disappears, then I’m not very optimistic for the future of this region…”

America should have:

1. accepted Lavrov’s sage advice

2. acknowledged the ineffectiveness of its coalition led air strikes in preventing the Islamic State rapidly expanding its occupation into large areas of Syrian and Iraqi sovereign territory causing the horrific murder, brutal beheading and ethnic cleansing of its civilian populations

3. joined Russia in preparing an alternative agreed plan of action to defeat the Islamic State

America missed this opportunity - enabling the Islamic State to continue its policy of conquest and subjugation contributing to the current refugee crisis now threatening to sink the European Union’s capacity to meet the tide of human misery knocking on its door.
Two earlier unanimous UN Security Council Resolutions — Resolutions 2170 and 2199 — had specified measures short of military action aimed at stopping the Islamic State.

Both however have failed to halt Islamic State’s brutal advance.

Resolution 2170 — passed on 15 August 2014 - clearly enunciated the Security Council’s revulsion at the Islamic State’s territorial grab and genocidal intentions following the self-declaration of the Islamic State in June 2014 - stressing:

“that terrorism can only be defeated by a sustained and comprehensive approach involving the active participation and collaboration of all States, and international and regional organizations to impede, impair, isolate and incapacitate the terrorist threat,”

Only a third Security Council resolution urging military action binding on “all States”can hope to meet this Security Council prescription.

American Secretary for State John Kerry has apparently learnt nothing from Lavrov’s June warning - declaring mantra-like on 19 September:

“We (America and Russia) share the same goals. We share the goal of ridding the region of ISIL. They (Russia) allege that they also share the goal of a political transition that leads to a stable, whole, united secular Syria.”

Kerry continues to tie the fate of the Islamic State to the fate of Assad — which will assuredly fall on deaf Russian ears.

America and Russia need to jointly sponsor the passage of that third Security Council resolution authorizing military action against the Islamic State by a UN-commanded armed force under Article 42 of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Negotiating that Resolution’s terms can be considerably expedited by understandings being reached with Russia that once that UN Mandated-force is constituted:

1. America and its coalition partners will only continue air strikes on the Islamic State as part of any such UN force

2. Those American-backed rebel forces seeking Assad’s overthrow and those Russian-backed Assad forces defending Assad will be respectively withdrawn behind agreed red lines until the Islamic State is routed.

Syria’s seven million displaced people may then just be able to see the slightest glimmer of light at the end of a long and very dark tunnel.

Russia And America Must Jointly Confront Islamic State

[Published 18 September 2015]


The possibility that Russia and America may at long last be seeking common ground on confronting Islamic State has been increased with US Secretary of State John Kerry revealing that his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov has approached America proposing military talks over Syria.

Kerry told reporters:

“The Russians proposed in the conversation I had today and the last conversation specifically that we have military-to-military conversation and meeting in order to discuss ... precisely what will be done to de-conflict with respect to any potential risks that might be run, and to have a complete and clear understanding as to the road ahead and what the intentions are,”

Russia is concerned to ensure that America will not take the opportunity to use any jointly agreed action against Islamic State as a pretext to try and oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or weaken his hold on power.

America suspects that Moscow’s motives in sending 200 Russian naval infantry soldiers, seven tanks, a portable air traffic control station and components of an air defense system to an Assad-stronghold airbase near Latakia on the Mediterranean coast is part of an ongoing military build-up to support Assad’s continued hold on power.

Russia would also not have been too impressed with White House spokesman Josh Earnest reportedly stating a few days earlier:

“What we would prefer to see from the Russians is a more constructive engagement with the 60-member coalition that’s led by the United States that’s focused on degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL,”

Eleven members of that US coalition comprise a group known as the London 11 supporting and arming the rebels fighting Assad for the last five years.

American and Russian distrust of the other’s possible motives in Syria were successfully put aside when they co-operated to have all chemical weapons in Syria held by Assad and his opponents destroyed by jointly securing the passing of Security Council Resolution 2118 (2013) on 27 September 2013.

Such agreement - reached between Russia and America without threatening to either restrict or extend Assad’s hold on power - was an impressive diplomatic achievement. However it only came about after they both decided to focus on destroying all chemical weapons in Syria — rather than focusing on whether Assad or the rebels was responsible for the use of chemical weapons that caused the deaths of 1429 Syrians on 21 August 2013.

Security Council Resolution 2118 ended the deadlock that had paralysed the Security Council’s efforts to end the civil war in Syria for the previous thirty months.

Russia and America now need to solely focus on defeating Islamic State - whilst putting their support for Assad or his overthrow on the backburner until Islamic State is defeated.

They can achieve this by jointly sponsoring another Security Council resolution under Chapter VII article 42 of the United Nations Charter which empowers the Security Council to:

“take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”

Every day’s delay in securing the passage of such a resolution - and acting on it - means further deaths, injuries and suffering for the Syrian and Iraqi populations at the hands of Islamic State. Internal displacement of those populations inside Syria and Iraq, or to neighbouring countries - or even into the European Union - has had disastrous consequences that have shocked all people of compassion and goodwill over the last three weeks.

The time for procrastinating, arguing and blaming is surely over.

Obama And Kerry Must Stop Playing Games With Israel's Future

[Published 9 September 2015]


Attempting to secure the Congressional vote required to confirm President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has necessitated Secretary for State John Kerry pledging Obama’s “rock solid” diplomatic support and increased military assistance for Israel — the bitterest opponent of Obama’s Iranian proposal.

Speaking at the National Constitution Center on 2 September—Kerry said:

"And diplomatically, our support for Israel also remains rock solid as we continue to oppose every effort to delegitimize the Jewish state, or to pass biased resolutions against it in international bodies."

Kerry continued:

"I take a back seat to no one in my commitment to the security of Israel, a commitment I demonstrated through my 28-plus years in the Senate. And as Secretary of State, I am fully conscious of the existential nature of the choice Israel must make…"

If Kerry is to be seriously believed then he must reassure Congress — irrespective of its vote on Iran - that the commitments made to Israel by President Bush in his letter dated 14 April 2004 supporting Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza will be scrupulously adhered to by the current Obama administration.

Kerry unequivocally supported those Presidential commitments when interviewed by Tim Russert on Meet the Press on 18 April 2004:

RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

KERRY: Yes.

RUSSERT: Completely?

KERRY: Yes.

Those commitments included:

1. Preventing any attempt to impose any plan other than President Bush’s Roadmap envisioned by him on 24 June 2002.
2. Being strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.
3. Understanding that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
4. Accepting as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.
5. Acknowledging that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,

Bush’s commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day (“the Bush/Congress Commitments”).

Obama attempted to water down these commitments in 2011 by suggesting possible Israeli land swaps be made for any territory Israel acquired in the West Bank.

Kerry piggybacked Obama in 2013 - inducing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to resume negotiations with Israel with this letter:

Dear Mr. President

In response to your question regarding our position on the issue of borders, this letter is to confirm that the position set forth by President Obama in his May 2011 speeches, that Palestine’s borders with Israel should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, still represents our position. As negotiations begin, I reiterate our commitment to this position. As you confirmed, this letter is and will remain private and confidential between you and me.”

Playing such furtive games with Abbas contrary to the Bush/Congress Commitments is now surely over following Kerry’s statement. Those commitments are set in concrete - binding all American administrations including Obama’s.